A Better Atonement: Jesus Died for This

This week, as we prepare for Good Friday and Easter, we’ve have a post every morning about the atonement. And I’ve curated streams on Storify and Tumbler, both tracking atonement. You can read all of the posts, and my past posts on this topic, here.

Before I conclude, let me express my thanks. This blog has picked up many new readers over the past month, as I’ve written my way through my thoughts on the atonement. I welcome you here, and I appreciate your comments (and tweets, FB posts, and blog posts). I also appreciate the favorable reviews of my ebook, A Better Atonement. Some of that book appeared originally on this blog, and some of it is exclusive to the book. This, my concluding post on the topic (for now), is not in the book.

Some have wondered why I am consumed with this topic. My brothers and sisters more liberal than I state that they figured this out long ago, and that I just making too much of Jesus’ death. One, John Vest, writes,

I titled this post “Ockham’s Atonement” not because William of Ockham had a theory of the atonement (that I’m aware of). Rather, I’m suggesting an approach to Jesus’ death that applies Ockham’s Razor: a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one. Jesus died because he was executed by the powers he threatened. To suggest anything else is to overlay this fact of history with unnecessary theological speculation.

Am I just too evangelical, looking as I am for cosmic import and redemption in the death of at Galilean peasant two millennia ago?

I think not.

If Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity — which I believe he was — then his crucifixion matters. And it matters more than as an example of someone who demonstrated “a Jesus-like revolutionary resistance in relation to a culture of unprecedented social inequality—and of unprecedented and appalling economic, racial, military, penal, environmental, and psychological violence.” (Oh, wait, that quote was about us, not Jesus.)

But, if you’ve been reading these posts, you know that I do not think that I owe a debt to God. I don’t think that God’s wrath burns against me because of some inherently sinful state that I involuntarily inherited.

So, I’ve looked for a reason — for some rationale as to why the Logos died on a cross.

I’ve found two interpretations of the crucifixion that give me something I’m looking for. Rene Girard’s Last Scapegoat appeals to my intellect. It makes sense of the Hebrew scriptures and the sacrificial system therein.

Jürgen Moltmann’s theology of the cross appeals to my sense of hope. Here, God comes to us and, in his experience of godforskakeness, unites with us in eternal solidarity. In fact, God invites us into the eternal love of the Trinity.

If I ever write a big book on the atonement, it will likely be an attempt to bring these two theories into harmony. For now, they co-habitate in my soul on this Good Friday. They’ve brought some peace to me, and some hope. And, as I said above, I am grateful for this journey.

Closing thoughts: we are loved and we are forgiven. No exceptions. No conditions.

Thank you Tony. I enjoyed this series very much. God bless you.

http://twofriarsandafool.com/ Aric Clark

Heh. You’re such a martyr Tony. You’ve said a couple times now that we liberals have been condescending and dismissive of your work. I love atonement theology. I think, talk, write about it all the time and am glad to see you doing so, as well. But it should be no surprise to you or your readers that you’re not exactly the first person to wrestle with this stuff. There are an embarrassment of goodbooks on this subject.

That’s no indictment of you. I’m looking forward to reading the book, and this series has been great. It’s just not new or super-original. No biggie. Most good ideas aren’t.

ME

I’ve enjoyed your explorations on the topic, they’ve been super enlightening. The conclusions you’ve reached make a lot of sense to me. In the end, I don’t know why exactly Jesus died on the cross, but, I’m utterly and perpetually blown away that he decided to!

Luke Allison

Closing thoughts: 1. I wish you had differentiated more between the “Boydesque” Christus Victor theory and the ancient Ransom Captive theory…I think the former may appeal to lots of evangelicals who question PSA but aren’t ready to jump completely into something more anthropological or sociological like Girard, while the latter is irrelevant and theologically untenable. 2. I’ve almost completed my shift into a “non-violent” hermeneutic. I’m still not convinced that retributive justice is always a bad thing (lex talionis isn’t about retribution so much as OVER-retribution), or that restorative justice is always an option. Frankly, if we are who we are genetically without the ability to really alter anything in the grand scheme, restorative justice is a pipe dream. But I’ve long labored over how to read the OT text without making the obvious mistake of equating God with every act of evil men can think of, and I’m beginning to warm up to a more progressive way of reading. But I still see inconsistency in people who are supposedly “on the side of the victim” but then defend rapists and murderers’ right to live without even giving the victims a say. 3. Your book is making its (non-substantive) rounds throughout a rather sizable mainstream evangelical mega-church in which I work. I have yet to find anybody who is offended by it or even annoyed by it, besides one Calvinist-type who reads Pyromaniacs. On the contrary, most people who have read it have basically said “Phew! I’ve always questioned the idea of original sin, but always thought I was moving outside the bounds of orthodoxy in doing so.” This is hopeful, because it tells me that believers of all stripes are merely uninformed or unaware, not necessarily wedded to particular theologies. I hope that more progressive folks can approach more conservative people with something resembling grace and humility in discussing these topics. We may find that commonalities abound!

Thanks for everything you’ve done with this project. I’m a faithful reader of your blog now.

http://GraceEmerges.blogspot.com BradleyD

Closing thoughts: Whatever the best explanation of the cross: it showed us God’s nature and showed us ourselves, who are made in God’s image. What Jesus did, he did because he represented God the Father and came to us to show God’s nature, his will, and his good intentions toward his creation.

Jesus is like a mirror of what human nature can be on its best day: forgiving, compassionate, accepting, able to resist favoritism and prejudices, kind to enemies, generous, gracious, and firmly standing for justice!

The theory of atonement? God revealed something about himself, and about us (human nature), by dying for us on the cross.

Buck Eschaton

Let me just add in here for who ever wants to explore. That Margaret Barker has some incredible writings on Atonement and early Christian symbolism.http://www.margaretbarker.com/

I’ve been, generally in disagreement with many of the positions you hold here on this blog, but I would defend your right to express them. I also want to say I sincerely appreciate your wrestling with these issues (that’s in no way an attempt to patronize) and with your sharing of your personal reflections regarding the atonement. While it may be true that those reflections have been thought through before and that all news is just old news happening to new people, I think you are very good at what you do. You are a very good popularizer of difficult theological concepts as you perceive them. That is a valuable contribution. That’s what Bart Ehrman does. It’s what Richard Dawkins does. I’m not lumping you together with atheists and agnostics. I just mean that taking esoteric information out of the ivory tower or the seminary and into the masses has great value. It gets people thinking.

In the spirit of openness I’ll leave this link to a sermon I recently ran across which was delivered by a prominent evangelical back in 2006. I think it’s interesting how his views on atonement throughout church history is not all that dissimilar from yours Tony, but then I’m the proverbial eternal optimist.

His conclusions may be different, but I think it at least moves away from the common distortions and stereotypes made of PSA.

The one and only time I got to meet you and speak face to face was in Tampa at NYWC in 2001. I attended a seminar you were leading about Post Modern Youth Ministry. After one of the sessions I approached you individually to ask a question (don’t even remember what the question was now). I know my question was questioning some of your beliefs that were shared in the previous talk. Instead of responding back on a individual level you drew the attention of those still remaining in the room, shared my question and answered. You appeared to be attempting to put me in my place for questioning you and I left feeling attacked and embarrassed. All I wanted was a few moments of dialogue.

Because of this, I spent most of the past decade having very little respect for you. However, my own journey has taking me down a path of questioning the belief structure I had embraced for so many years. As I embrace this journey it has brought me to you. I have been lurking for the past few weeks reading your posts. In doing so, I have begin to gain respect for you and your words have been a great asset in helping me connect the dots.

So I say, Thank You and apologize for the years I disrespected you.

http://tonyj.net Tony Jones

And I’m sorry I was an asshole.

Daniel Fuchs

Big Tone Dogg!!! Loved your ebook.

Daniel Fuchs

More specifically, A Better Atonement.

http://datady.com/ data

I really appreciate this post. I’ve been looking everywhere for this! Thank goodness I found it on Bing. You have made my day! Thx again

http://www.amazon.com/Fight-The-Belly-Fat-ebook/dp/B0080HU5MI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336415033&sr=8-1 get rid of belly fat for men

Someone essentially help to make seriously articles I would state. This is the first time I frequented your website page and thus far? I surprised with the research you made to create this particular publish extraordinary. Magnificent job!

http://feather-earrings.tumblr.com/ fashion feather earrings

Saved this fabulous website and put in the RSS feeds to my smart phone, appreciated this content ton man! Appreciate your an amazing article and an all-around entertaining blogging site!

http://martinamcbride.com/users/3XFTIevK/blogs/2791391 auto insurance

baseball equipment online usa

http://www.funnyordie.com/Vandalsq96 chaveiros em couro

We target to those promotional items or promotional items which are going being ones that people use each day

http://truthconcentrate.com Renegade Gospel

The atonement is a no brainer if you don’t avoid the plain meaning of the words, the evidence of science and passage people don’t like in the Bible. The complete atonement theory is called the Jesus Manifold. First the plain meaning of the words “Jesus is God” tells plainly that God died, not a man, the GodMan. How God could die is a question for physics not atonement, is it Physically impossible for God to Die(Shroud or Turin evidence shows a Big Bang Equivalent occurred at the resurrection, see Dame Piczek) ? We have no adequate definition of death or God that creates a contradiction, but we do know Jesus died, and we know Jesus is God e.g. God died. If God is omniscient all events are predestined, I cannot choose to do other than what God know I will do or He will be wrong, not omniscient and not God.This is supported by physics at the classical level because there was a Big Bang, and physical laws exist which strongly determine all particle placement in space-time regardless of whether they could be known by anything in the universe(God omniscient is by definition outside the universe). If all acts, which include sinful acts, are predetermined by God, God is responsible for all sin. injustice, etc. If the penalty or consequence for sin is death, God did die for all sin which He is responsible for. This could have occurred without our knowledge, why was important to God for men to know this? We are separated from God by the knowledge of justice-Good and Evil, because we judge God. When the idea of a benevolent, all powerful, all knowing God is realized by anyone in this world ruled by Entropy, decay and death, God’s benevolence is questioned: “why do bad things happen to good people, and why do bad things happen at all?” Our intuitive sense of injustice immediately separates everyone from God. If I say, “God you are unjust, you created the universe, the devil, and me, if I deserve to die, you deserve to die”. God responded that He did so LOVE the world that He did die, argument over, move on to how you will now live in response to that love.